A few weeks ago I got that 2-day reviewing ban. I'm fine with that, it was an eye-opener for me and definitely ended up in me doing a better job of reviewing (note that I'm definitely the 'fast-reviewer' type).

This morning I was reviewing this post (which turned out to be an audit) in the "First Posts" queue. It was a questionable post. However I let it pass because it was a question related to programming and the format of the question wasn't too bad. Hell, I could have been the one asking this specific question.

So I failed the audit. I understand that posts are picked automatically so I was fine with it.

However, this failed audit automatically resulted in ANOTHER 2-day ban.

Can someone explain to me why I got another ban after a single failed review (which was questionable if you ask me)?

  • 18
    Questionable? It's certainly off-topic. It's career advice. Commented May 13, 2013 at 6:43
  • 2
    So what is the real issue? Take two days off and do something else. Nobody is forcing you to review, and you can participate freely on the rest of the site.
    – slhck
    Commented May 13, 2013 at 7:03
  • 3
    You were one of three reviewers accepting this edit, but I have to ask. Do you see nothing else here that could use some attention? stackoverflow.com/review/suggested-edits/2100272
    – Bart
    Commented May 13, 2013 at 7:21
  • @Bart Yes I agree with you, this isn't a good review.. I definitely get too excited when I see a more than 1 post is available for review. Thanks, I guess I'm really deserving this ban =/. The quality of posts (and therefor the site) shouldn't be affected by me trying to reach my 20-review max for that day.. Note that I'm genuinely trying to increase the quality of posts, not just trying to get my badge or something..
    – Rob
    Commented May 13, 2013 at 7:26
  • 17
    +1 from me on coming here calmly and taking your lessons. It's too rare in my opinion so kudos to you! Commented May 13, 2013 at 8:10

2 Answers 2


There is currently no "score" for audit. Audits are all the same no matter how easy or hard to pass they are. (hence "which was questionable if you ask me" is not relevant)

The system assumes that those who failed once are more prone to fail again, so another ban after a single failure makes sense in my opinion. Keep in mind that it took more than one failure to give you the first ban.

I don't know the specific details and they are probably secret to prevent gaming the system, but I think this is all correct. Just keep your eyes even more open and always Skip if you are not sure.

  • I completely agree with you, but there's a BIIIGGGG gap between the "score" of an audit... Audits are in most occasions spotted before the post itself is on the screen (Audits take longer too load, which is completely obvious and definitely a flaw in the system)..
    – Rob
    Commented May 13, 2013 at 6:45
  • @Rob might be true, but that's not the issue here. If you want, feel free to suggest new feature-request to add "audit weight" (better term). Commented May 13, 2013 at 6:46
  • 2
    The last three audits I encountered loaded in the same time it takes new review items to load. I have encountered slower loading audits but then again, I have also encountered slower loading genuine reviews. You shouldn't assume that they are audits simply because they take longer to load.
    – Ren
    Commented May 13, 2013 at 8:03

The question on the review audit is not a programming question,

enter image description here

So, you should flag it as offtopic as you are aware of C# or you should skip the review.

It's not a problem, wait for 2 days(not a huge period just 48 hours). Your reviewing skills will not be affected at all.

  • It's not about the ban, I want to contribute to this amazing community. I learn new things about SO alone every day, this is one of those things. And although it is true my reviewing skills will not be affected, the system's behavior will be affected by this. Also my "skills in detecting audits" will also be affected, which (in my point of view) is exactly what should be prevented.
    – Rob
    Commented May 13, 2013 at 6:52
  • 3
    Rob: Given that you haven't recognized (not one, but) two instances of reviews that should've been rather evident, this should be an indicator that you should read the close/flag options a little more carefully and keep an eye on the SO FAQ to see more clearly what should and shouldn't be proper in a question or answer. Commented May 13, 2013 at 7:01
  • @Rob, detecting audits is not a better skill, u can detect an audit by just clicking the flag button, a better reviewer should take a look on the given post for reviewing.
    – Azik
    Commented May 13, 2013 at 7:08
  • 2
    @Azik Thats exactly what I meant, I don't want to game the system. I guess I deserve this ban, thanks for the clarification tho.
    – Rob
    Commented May 13, 2013 at 7:28
  • 6
    @Rob, if you want to contribute to the community you can do it best by helping everyone keep the site clean. If you don't try and remove off-topic posts then you're not helping... You seem conscientious so maybe it might be best if you spent the time you would normally be reviewing reading a few posts on meta to determine better how you should be approaching certain types of post? Commented May 13, 2013 at 7:59
  • @benisuǝqbackwards Alright, thats a good idea. Thanks Ben
    – Rob
    Commented May 13, 2013 at 8:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .